Saint John, New Testament, Chapter Six...

[SyCarl]

1. God’s Church was referred to as ‘‘catholic’’ for the first time in the 1st century in a letter by St. Ireneus who used the word meaning ‘‘universal’’. The disciples of the apostles (the early Church fathers) quickly adopted the word to distinguish it from other pagan churches.

Actually it was Ignatius of Antioch

1. Sacred Scripture and Tradition was taught as a whole with the same interpretation for centuries until Martin Luther added the word ‘‘alone’’ to the King James Version 1600.

Luther had nothing to do with the King James Version. German translated the Bible into German, not English. The King James Version is from 1611 and does not contain Luther’s inclusion of the word alone.

1. The King James Version 1600 contains a calendar of all the Saint Feast Days and all 72 books.

Actually the Catholic Bible has 73 books. The original King James Version had 76 books as it included 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Mannasseh.

1. There was a living Catholic Church between the time the disciples of Jesus’ apostles taught and the Bible was published with 72 books (not 66) and John Ch. 6 was taken as literal then and it is taken as literal now.

Actually Augustine had this to say about taking John 6 literally.

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

(On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

 

[Stephen168]

Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-28). The Eucharist is a holy sacrifice, a holy communion, and a memorial. It makes present the sacrifice of Christ. (Hebrews 13:15, 1Peter 2:5) We are united with Christ into one body (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). Eucharist is taken where the faithful are assembled in a solemn manner by people that are worthy and believe the bread and wine are the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:17-34). How the bread and wine become Jesus through the consecration has always been a mystery, but Jesus said it was true. (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20). After Jesus first said this, many of his follows left him because they knew he was not speaking figuratively (John 6:51-68). Unleavened bread is used because it is the Passover bread. Wine is an alcoholic drink made from grapes (Genesis 9:20-21, Ephesians 5:18). The authority to consecrate the bread and wine was given to the Apostles (1 Corinthians 11:24-25) and the authority was passed to the Bishops and Priests of his church. Every Sunday they not only remember the sacrifice of Christ but they would join in the Mystical body of Christ and his Church.

‘I have no taste for corruptible food nor for pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.’ -* Ignatius of Antioch, letter to the Romans, 105 AD.*

‘And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.’ - Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 66, 155 AD.

‘… I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received.’ *Augustine of Hippo, Sermons 227, 393 AD. *

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Actually Augustine had this to say about taking John 6 literally.

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
(On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

He also said this:

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

-“Sermons”, [227, 21]

“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.

-“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa

"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.

"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:

 

[SyCarl]

He also said this:

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

-“Sermons”, [227, 21]

“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.

-“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa

"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.

Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.D.

"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice… . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him.

Source: St. Augustine, The City of God, 10, 5; 10,20, c. 426:

However this thread is about John 6, not Augustine’s view of the Eucharist.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

However this thread is about John 6, not Augustine’s view of the Eucharist.

I’m not sure what the post from Augustine you presented means.

This is more clear:

Explanations on the Psalms, [98, 9] A.D. 392-418:
And adore the footstool of His feet, because it is holy [Psalm 98:9, LXX 99:9]. . .In another place in the Scripture it says: The heavens are my throne, but the earth is the footstool of My feet' [Isa 66:1] Is it the earth, then, that He commands us to adore, since in this other place the earth is called the footstool of God's feet? . . . I am put in jeopardy by such a dilemma (Anceps factus sum): I am afraid to adore the earth lest He that made heaven and earth condemn me; again, I am afraid not to adore the footstool of My Lord's feet, but because the Psalm does say to me: Adore the footstool of My feet.’ I ask what the footstool of His feet is; and Scripture tells me: `The earth is the footstool of my feet.’ Perplexed, I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that** flesh **unless he adores it ; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring.

Other than John 6, where do we read of the flesh of Jesus being eaten.

 

[SyCarl]

I’m not sure what the post from Augustine you presented means.

This is more clear:

Explanations on the Psalms, [98, 9] A.D. 392-418:
And adore the footstool of His feet, because it is holy [Psalm 98:9, LXX 99:9]. . .In another place in the Scripture it says: The heavens are my throne, but the earth is the footstool of My feet' [Isa 66:1] Is it the earth, then, that He commands us to adore, since in this other place the earth is called the footstool of God's feet? . . . I am put in jeopardy by such a dilemma (Anceps factus sum): I am afraid to adore the earth lest He that made heaven and earth condemn me; again, I am afraid not to adore the footstool of My Lord's feet, but because the Psalm does say to me: Adore the footstool of My feet.’ I ask what the footstool of His feet is; and Scripture tells me: `The earth is the footstool of my feet.’ Perplexed, I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that** flesh **unless he adores it ; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring.

Other than John 6, where do we read of the flesh of Jesus being eaten.

Augustine’s exposition of John 6 does not really expound a literal interpretation. Writing specifically on John 6 he also said:

“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.

Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, Paragraph 12
newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.

Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1
newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 27, Paragraph 3
newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm

Let me say that I believe in the Real Presence, although not necessarily in the manner of transubstantiation. I just do not feel John 6 is proof of it.

 

[mdstanzel]

You take Him for His word; only when you understand His word.

“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_early_christian_studies/v002/2.4.mcgowan.html

I believe that you fall into this category of ancient Rome. The thought of eating someone’s flesh and drinking their blood. Because Jesus said this, not as a jesture of symbolism, but as real meaning. Go back to the Passover Supper. What do you see? What were they required to do to be saved? Abraham was supposed to sacrifice Issac. But the he was stopped. Jesus made Himself the Passover Supper. That is why he did not say it just once. He emphasized it and turned to the apostles and said “are you going to leave me too?” The said “Lord, to whom shall we go?” The point is that even though they didn’t understand it either they believed Jesus was the Mesiah and who else would they go to if only Jesus would tell them. They stayed and the rest is History.

Have you ever wondered how many Christians today are taught and beleive in the real presence of Christ? You are out numbered about 2 to 1 hipshooting statistics. Catholic [1.2 Billion], Orthodox Christians [0.25 Billion], Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and a mix of others. However, the first 2 are required to believe if they are to receive. That is why we say “Amen” before receiving. Read Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyernians.

Brother, Take the time to learn about the History available for us all to read. Don’t assume.
**[
](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.vii.html)**
Chapter VII.—Let us stand aloof from such heretics.
in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
They are ashamed of the cross; they mock at the passion; they make a jest of the resurrection. They are the offspring of that spirit who is the author of all evil, who led Adam, by means of his wife, to transgress the commandment, who slew Abel by the hands of Cain, who fought against Job, who was the accuser of Joshua the son of Josedech, who sought to “sift the faith” of the apostles, who stirred up the multitude of the Jews against the Lord, who also now “worketh in the children of disobedience; from whom the Lord Jesus Christ will deliver us, who prayed that the faith of the apostles might not fail, not because He was not able of Himself to preserve it, but because He rejoiced in the pre-eminence of the Father. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and neither in private nor in public to talk with them; but to give heed to the law, and the prophets, and to those who have preached to you the word of salvation. But flee from all abominable heresies, and those that cause schisms, as the beginning of evils.
%between%

 

[NonCatholic]

muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_early_christian_studies/v002/2.4.mcgowan.html

I believe that you fall into this category of ancient Rome. The thought of eating someone’s flesh and drinking their blood. Because Jesus said this, not as a jesture of symbolism, but as real meaning. Go back to the Passover Supper. What do you see? What were they required to do to be saved? Abraham was supposed to sacrifice Issac. But the he was stopped. Jesus made Himself the Passover Supper. That is why he did not say it just once. He emphasized it and turned to the apostles and said “are you going to leave me too?” The said “Lord, to whom shall we go?” The point is that even though they didn’t understand it either they believed Jesus was the Mesiah and who else would they go to if only Jesus would tell them. They stayed and the rest is History.

Read John 6:63 where Jesus in no uncertain terms tells us the manner in which He spoke.

Have you ever wondered how many Christians today are taught and beleive in the real presence of Christ? You are out numbered about 2 to 1 hipshooting statistics. Catholic [1.2 Billion], Orthodox Christians [0.25 Billion], Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and a mix of others. However, the first 2 are required to believe if they are to receive. That is why we say “Amen” before receiving. Read Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyernians.

They are the “religious” many Jesus spoke of int Matthew 7:13-14 and many other places. I am part of the “few”.

Brother, Take the time to learn about the History available for us all to read. Don’t assume.
%between%

Brother, read the Bible and pray to God for understanding and don’t just assume you have the truth because of a religious association, this is the grand mistake the Scribes, Pharisees, and their followers made and Jesus rebuked.

 

[guanophore]

In the OT the Jews were commanded by GOD to NOT eat the blood of a living being. Yet you want everyone to believe that Jesus, when speaking to law abiding Jews, spoke literally that they should break the law of HIS Father.

I think He knew they would not accept it. They had trouble with His claims to be God. This law was given to keep in front of the Jewish mind that the Life is in the Blood:

Gen 9:3-5
4 Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.

Jesus’ blood IS our Life. He has paid the reckoning for us on the cross.

Please tell me why when after Jesus supposedly consecrated the wine into HIS blood that HE still refers to it as drinking the fruit of the wine?

He is referring to the fourth cup of the passover, which He drank on the cross.

It was a way of referring to wine. Show me the instructions Jesus gave to HIS disciples to repeat the process of turning the bread and wine into HIS literal body and blood. Do this in remembrance of ME refers to eating the bread and drinking the wine in remembrance of Christ. So where does Jesus say when you repeat the words I just stated the consecration takes place.

The rememberance meal, such as the Passover, brings those present into the mystery of the sacrifical deliverance. Jesus is changing the way the Apostles will celebrate passover. He becomes their lamb, and hereafter, they will dring the cup and eat bringing themselves present to the foot of the cross, participating mystically in His sacrifice.

This is how the Apostles understood Him. Do you think He was too weak or disinterested to correct them if they got it wrong?

Now also in Corinthians when Paul repeats the words of the so-called consecration he still refers to the bread as bread saying as often as you eat this bread. Why doesn’t Paul say when you eat the flesh of Christ.

He does. You cannot be guilty of somthing that is not present. If one eats in an unworthy manner, one is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. How could that be, if they were not present?

Why did Jesus take the 3rd cup of redemption, which is red wine mixed with warm water in the Seder meal to SYMBOLIZE the blood of the lambs from the Exodus, and say this cup is the new covenant in MY blood?? HE didn’t say this cup of my blood. The Jews always treated the wine as a symbolic representation of the blood of the lambs. Christ now says it’s HIS blood as the perfect sacrificial lamb. Yet somehow you want to change a sacred Jewish practice into your own by taking a piece of figurative scripture and putting it through a meat grinder so it meets a ridiculous belief.

Jesus became the sacrificial Passover Lamb. He was slain for our sins. His blood is the blood of the New Covenant. His Blood IS the Lamb’s blood. Jesus changed the sacred Jewish practice. He fulfilled the meaning of it by shedding His blood for us.

Finally in the 1st century it was a common Jewish tradition that when a man and woman considered marriage, they drank a cup of red wine. The groom in proposing to the woman would take the cup of red wine, hand it to the woman and say “This cup is a covenant with my blood”. The woman had a choice of either drinking it or not. If she did it represented her acceptance to be his bride. I don’t think she thought she was drinking his blood.

Well, Jesus taught that they were, and the Apostles continued to teach that they become members one of another. They are not their own any longer, but each belongs to the other.

Now let’s see what does Christ call HIS church? Does the word bride come to mind? Each time we drink from the cup we proclaim Christ’s death and profess our acceptance to be part of Christ’s bride, HIS church.

PEACE

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

 

[guanophore]

Paul was yes, in every whit a Christian. Being a Christian is a momentary miracle,

No, this is not the case. There may be apoint in some people’s lives, a moment in time where one has a “Damascus” type encounter, but often there is not. It is a lifestyle, called in the NT “The Way”. It is this lifestyle that is preserved in the Sacred Tradition. The life of Christ present in the Church.

but the transition takes time and old features of Judaism died slowly even in Paul’s life. By the time he gets to the Book of Philippians, a lot more of them have died off. He says, after saying that, “I was a Jew, and I was a Hebrew, I was a Hebrew and a Pharisee and all,” he says in the next verse, “But what things were gained in me? Those I–” what? “Counted lost.”

The fact that he did not have to cling to his religious practices does not equate to them “dying off”. He was willing to give up all for Christ - to count it as garbage. However, he did not count it as garbage. He kept the traditions of his forefathers consistently, knowing that His salvation was not in them, but in Christ.

In other words, (paraphrase) “those things used to be what made up my life, but I let them go, and I considered only Christ. From now on, I’m not interested in ceremonies. I’m not interested in rituals. I only know one thing–I want to know Him.” That’s what he said to the Colossians. That’s all. “I want the excellency of the knowledge of Christ.”

Well, this is a nice paraphrase of Scripture. Perhaps you will consider publishing the NonCatholic version of scripture, so you can apply this method throughout? No doubt you will garner quite a following.

However, I am compelled to remain with what the text actually says, which is that Paul practiced Jewish rituals and ceremonies, just as Jesus did. He did not see a contradiction between them and being Christian. You rendition seems to imply that one cannot come to know Christ through ritual, but in fact, we can, and we do.

Jesus created humanity with a predilection for ritual. Either we will adopt His, or we will invent our own.

Protestants have rituals and traditions too, they just don’t like to call them that. Sounds too Catholic.

 That's some interpretation.  It wasn't until 8 days later that these individual men, not an organism/institution, received the Holy Spirit.

In God’s time, a thousand words is one day. However, Catholics believe that Jesus is God, and that everything is created through Him, and for Him. He was in the begining with God. When God said, “let there be light” it was so, “let the waters be divided” and it was so, etc. When He says “this is my body”, it was so. When He said “receive my Spirit” it was so.

It is interesting that the main times that Protestants disagree with Catholics is when we take the scripture literally.

 Very Christian!

So we can be in agreement that Scriptures do not save, as you stated?

 

[MelanieAnne]

muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_early_christian_studies/v002/2.4.mcgowan.html

I believe that you fall into this category of ancient Rome. The thought of eating someone’s flesh and drinking their blood. Because Jesus said this, not as a jesture of symbolism, but as real meaning. Go back to the Passover Supper. What do you see? What were they required to do to be saved? Abraham was supposed to sacrifice Issac. But the he was stopped. Jesus made Himself the Passover Supper. That is why he did not say it just once. He emphasized it and turned to the apostles and said “are you going to leave me too?” The said “Lord, to whom shall we go?” The point is that even though they didn’t understand it either they believed Jesus was the Mesiah and who else would they go to if only Jesus would tell them. They stayed and the rest is History.

Have you ever wondered how many Christians today are taught and beleive in the real presence of Christ? You are out numbered about 2 to 1 hipshooting statistics. Catholic [1.2 Billion], Orthodox Christians [0.25 Billion], Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and a mix of others. However, the first 2 are required to believe if they are to receive. That is why we say “Amen” before receiving. Read Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyernians.

Brother, Take the time to learn about the History available for us all to read. Don’t assume.
%between%

As a former Episcopalian I can tell you that Episcopalians do not believe in Transubstantiation (and lets not confuse Real Presence with Transubstantiation, especially not in THIS thread! )

But you’re correct that the numbers of believers in the Real Presence are greater than just the Catholic Church. It would be rather provincial of us in the USA to believe that the entire Christian experience resides here. To the world at large the #1 symbol of Christianity is the Pope. Some US Protestants may not like that, but that’s how it is.

 

[JonNC]

To the world at large the #1 symbol of Christianity is the Pope. Some US Protestants may not like that, but that’s how it is.

Melanie,
I don’t see how this could be denied, if you mean by symbol you mean a single human being. And the last 5 have been pretty good symbols.

Jon

 

[Hisalone]

No, this is not the case. There may be apoint in some people’s lives, a moment in time where one has a “Damascus” type encounter, but often there is not. It is a lifestyle, called in the NT “The Way”. It is this lifestyle that is preserved in the Sacred Tradition. The life of Christ present in the Church.

This is the case for all. You are born in a moment of time as recorded on your birth certificate. When you are reborn in the rebirth it is a moment of time, you are born a new creature.From that moment in time you proceed on the way.

The fact that he did not have to cling to his religious practices does not equate to them “dying off”. He was willing to give up all for Christ - to count it as garbage. However, he did not count it as garbage. He kept the traditions of his forefathers consistently, knowing that His salvation was not in them, but in Christ.

Paul was a practicing Jew always but that was before the Roman Church forbade it.

Well, this is a nice paraphrase of Scripture. Perhaps you will consider publishing the NonCatholic version of scripture, so you can apply this method throughout? No doubt you will garner quite a following.

However, I am compelled to remain with what the text actually says, which is that Paul practiced Jewish rituals and ceremonies, just as Jesus did. He did not see a contradiction between them and being Christian. You rendition seems to imply that one cannot come to know Christ through ritual, but in fact, we can, and we do.

Jesus created humanity with a predilection for ritual. Either we will adopt His, or we will invent our own.

Protestants have rituals and traditions too, they just don’t like to call them that. Sounds too Catholic.

Yes Paul would have been either excommunicated or burnt at the stake for practicing his Jewish roots in the 4th century Roman Church.

In God’s time, a thousand words is one day. However, Catholics believe that Jesus is God, and that everything is created through Him, and for Him. He was in the begining with God. When God said, “let there be light” it was so, “let the waters be divided” and it was so, etc. When He says “this is my body”, it was so. When He said “receive my Spirit” it was so.

So when Jesus said this is my body which was His body the bread or the body which spoke those words?

It is interesting that the main times that Protestants disagree with Catholics is when we take the scripture literally.

So we can be in agreement that Scriptures do not save, as you stated?

The word of God doesnt save?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Melanie,
I don’t see how this could be denied, if you mean by symbol you mean a single human being. And the last 5 have been pretty good symbols.

Jon

I agree.

However, the “Born-Again” variety of Christians that consider Catholics to be non-Christian (there are some!) or even Pagan probably wouldn’t be real happy about the Pope being the symbol of Christianity to the world at large.

 

[Hisalone]

***Quote:
Originally Posted by MelanieAnne
To the world at large the #1 symbol of Christianity is the Pope. Some US Protestants may not like that, but that’s how it is.

Melanie,
I don’t see how this could be denied, if you mean by symbol you mean a single human being. And the last 5 have been pretty good symbols.

Jon***
I disagree with both of you. The cross is the leading symbol.
Today the pope may be the most recognizable christian figure but that is different than being the leading symbol.
BTW what does tis have to do with the OP?

 

[MelanieAnne]

You do have to follow the thread…

And I was referring, obviously, to a human face associated with Christianity. Of course a cross (we prefer crucifix since THAT’s what it’s all about) is the leading symbol. But I guess some people just have to find something to argue about.

 

[Hisalone]

You do have to follow the thread…

And I was referring, obviously, to a human face associated with Christianity. Of course a cross (we prefer crucifix since THAT’s what it’s all about) is the leading symbol. But I guess some people just have to find something to argue about.

We of course prefer the cross so as not to flagarantly disobey any of the commandments.

 

[JonNC]

Melanie,
I don’t see how this could be denied, if you mean by symbol you mean a single human being****. And the last 5 have been pretty good symbols.

Jon
I disagree with both of you. The cross is the leading symbol.
Today the pope may be the most recognizable christian figure but that is different than being the leading symbol.
BTW what does tis have to do with the OP?

Of course the cross/crucifix is. That’s why I qualified my agreement, poorly worded though it was.
I meant, if by symbol you mean a single human being. With the qualification, I agree with Melanie.
As for the OP, I was simply responding to Melanie’s remark.

Jon

 

[Hisalone]

Of course the cross/crucifix is. That’s why I qualified my agreement, poorly worded though it was.
I meant, if by symbol you mean a single human being. With the qualification, I agree with Melanie.
As for the OP, I was simply responding to Melanie’s remark.

Jon

I would even bet since this pope has been around a relative short period of time Billy Graham is more recognizable.

 

[JonNC]

I would even bet since this pope has been around a relative short period of time Billy Graham is more recognizable.

In America, perhaps, though I doubt it now. Melanie said the world at large.
btw, the crucifix does not violate any commandment.

Jon